Talk:USB-C

'Receptacle'?

What does this mean?: 'adaptors/cables with a Type-C receptacle are not allowed'. Would that be 'socket' in real life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The receptacle is the "socket" or the "female". This is defined in the USB page. USB Type-C does not allow cables with receptacles/female/sockets (so type-C plug/male to type-C receptacle/female extension cables are forbidden by the specification). msam 12:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsam84 (talk • contribs)

A socket is built into the casing of a device, therefore spacially fixed, while a receptacle is at the end of a cable, therefore mobile, that's the difference. Both are the counterpart to a (male) plug. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Pedantically speaking, the plug should be described as female and the receptacle as male, as the centre-most concentric part is concave on the plug. Nobody adheres to this, of course. Brianetta ^{Brian Ronald, UK. Talk here} 19:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like people should be more aware of this. 2601:483:400:2780:DE63:211E:3BD9:DDDF (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

What is serial about usb c ?

There are so many connectors on this cable, it is not serial anymore? Also I read somewher parallel cables were on the way out because it was difficult to route the individual signals on the mother boards and keep them in sync with high frequencies involved cuz different paths have different length. Can someone shed some light on these two different but related questions ? Maybe this may be part of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.91.45.131 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still serial, although - just like PCI - you can have more than one serial connection (two at the moment, with the still rare USB 3.2 2x2 interface, hence its name). PCI calls those lanes, but they are all serial, just more than one. Do not be confused by the fact that differential interfaces always use TWO wires to transmit ONE bit. But when you really want to dig deep, then USB is not a bus at all, because USB implements point-to-point connections, whereas a bus would implement point-to-multipoint connections. 2001:A61:BBE:2F01:D411:D42E:6879:BC94 (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, parallel interfaces (such as the original conventional PCI) for "long" connections (and at high speeds, 100 mm counts as "long") are now avoided because different paths have different lengths, leading to skew, so it's difficult to send a bunch of bits "in parallel" and keep them in sync.

USB-3.2 (which requires USB-C connectors), like PCI Express, has several independent serial interfaces: each serial interface (each twisted-pair of data wires) is independently synchronized, so it doesn't matter that different pairs (different paths) have different lengths.

Many people use the definition "a parallel channel uses a single, common clock for all signals while each serial (sub)channel has its own clock, usually embedded", as mentioned in the Talk:Parallel_communication talk page -- but, alas, not yet mentioned in the serial communication or parallel communication articles.

For more details, see "How is USB 3.2 still serial when there are so many data cables?". --DavidCary (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on 9to5Google as a source

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source.[1] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface (UCSI)

USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface (UCSI) is an extension developed by intel to allow devices to inject drivers into microsoft windows. It is badly documented and completely missing from the main wikipedia article on USB C. Leaving this note here so we at least document this gap for now. I plan to add something to be included in the article as a comment on this topic later this month. 38.42.43.235 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What was the first smartphone with USB-C connector?

Please add some "firsts" to this article.

1) What was the first smartphone with USB-C connector?

• It possibly was the "LeTV One Max" in 2015?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeEco#LeMobile

• https://gizmodo.com/icymi-this-is-the-first-smartphone-with-usb-type-c-1697846717

2) What was the first laptop computer with USB-C connector?

3) What was the first desktop computer with USB-C connector?

98.164.31.103 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

i too was just wondering this.

earliest device i had with a usb-c shaped connector was a Motorola Z.. The end was constructed differently than it is now. It had more of that typical toothed notch pattern where the connector was fit together (similair to usb A ) that isnt seen anymore. Motorola referred to this as Turbo Power, trademarked probably. The wire wasnt detachable from the power supply end either, like most tend to be now.

Worth noting that with the Turbo Power cable it did not withold any of the power pins inside the connectors, unlike some brands might have done. Often missing several of the middle pins or various other combinations. Reduced charging capacity was the result of less pins usually. Some devices didnt find it necessary to include the entire set of twenty something pins. 73.193.30.21 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Power throughput

Is power throughput on the page at all? Up to 240 watts now for 2.1 --Wikideas1 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Apple's involvement in USB-C development

The following paragraph cites a somewhat contradictory source in reference to Apple's non-involvement in the design of the USB-C connect;

'The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Intel, Texas Instruments and the USB Implementers Forum, without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends. The type-C Specification 1.0 was published by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) on August 11, 2014. In July 2016, it was adopted by the IEC as "IEC 62680-1-3".'

There are some issues here. 1) The source cited (2; https://9to5mac.com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/) indicates cites a source that the USB Implementer's Forum did indeed use Apple engineers;

"All told, Apple contributed 18 of 79 named engineers listed on the connector certification project or under 23%."

and it puts for the following conclusion;

"So while it might be impossible to find definitive evidence that Apple didn’t submit the initial USB Type-C proposal, it at very best had an incredible amount of help from the rest of the industry getting the standard into production."

2) The quality of the source is pretty low. The piece is short, mostly uninformative and speculates about Apple's involvement.

3) The phraseology "The design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Intel, Texas Instruments and the USB Implementers Forum, without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends." seems inappropriate. The wording suggest that the belief that Apple Inc was involved qualifies as an urban legend. It also seems that "...without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends." is completely unnecessary as it doesn't improve the article and seems out of touch with the section it is in. If there is any controversy about the participation of Apple or any other entities in the forming of the USB-C standard, that should be contained in a separate section. 69.162.230.42 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I edited this to remove just the phrase "...without Apple Inc., despite some urban legends.", but then I did some more digging and found that the edit that added this was editing out the attribution to Apple and cited the same low quality source. I think that in it's current form this formulation more neutral and accurate than either of the previous edits. Also it benefits from being more succinct. 69.162.230.42 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I also editing out the source. 69.162.230.42 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of USB-C for Touch

I've searched the Wiki, but I can't find anything to do with USB-C's ability to transfer touch information? Should this be included? 82.46.223.150 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

why? it's just data from a digitiser or whatever, no different than if it was from a mouse or a tablet.

duncanrmi (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

different power levels for valid USB-C cables

@RayWiki519 How do you explain this 140W cable DeLock 88136 ? Angerdan (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I really cannot. Delock would need to explain that one. Or somebody with tools to dump its eMarker.

The question is, if Delock just sells it as such, because it will fry the watt meter if you use it with peripherals that would do more than 28V. Or if they just did not test with more than 140W, because of lack of devices that use it or if they somehow messed with the eMarker data.

According the Type-C standard, like I referenced, there are only 60W, 100W and 240W USB-C cables. Only those are certifieable. And 100W is even deprecated. Because 240W cables are basically not different / more work to produce. So if we are talking "USB-IF compliant cables", only those exist and this Delock 140W cable is no Type-C compliant cable. Just as extension cables are not allowed.

It seems the eMarker data could actually allow to define support for voltages in-between 20V and 50V:

PD 3.2 p187:

Maximum Voltage (one of): 20V, 30V (deprecated, no longer allowed), 40V (deprecated, no longer allowed), 50V.

I do not know when those voltage levels where allowed in the past. Maybe there was a version that allowed that, before USB started using it itself? Not sure.

In PD 2.0 those same bits still indicate sth. completely different bits did not exist. PD 3.1 already outlawed the intermediate voltages. But 3.1 according to our sister page USB was the first to add EPR support in the first place.

But the EPR bit in that same data structure makes it a requirement to use more than 100W over a cable mandates that 50V and 5A are supported.

Type-C spec 2.3 p39

"USB Type-C cable assemblies designed for USB PD Extended Power Range (EPR) operation are required to have an electronic marking indicating EPR compatibility. These cables are required to be electronically marked for 5 A and 50 V and include the EPR Mode Capable bit set."

So technically, maybe there was an older PD version that allowed for the existence of cables that signal 30V and 5A for a maximum wattage of 150W. But any valid USB-C/PD device would only use that as 100W USB-C cable as I understand it, because it would not be EPR capable. And cables that are EPR capable are always capable of the full 240W.

Since the table in the article was intended to list the cable types the USB-C standard allows, I think it should match only those.

You may add separate sections or sth. about non-standard things and cables. But unless there are parts in the spec that explain how a cable that is actually limited to 140W, not just advertised for only that, can exist and actually work, I am against mentioning this as if it was allowed or supported by the USB-C specs.

And there were definitely never any intermediate steps between 3A and 5A support or voltages less than 20V for cables. Cables cannot even signal this via eMarker. The wattages you added below 60W are 100% incorrect and do not apply to cables. That would at most be common wattages for power supplies or devices. But not cables. RayWiki519 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. PD 3.0 added the ability for cables to define voltages higher than 20V. EPR did not exist back then. PD 3.1, which Delock claims, outlawed everything between 20V and 50V and defined how to actually use > 20V for PD. So anything Delock writes is untrustworthy from the start.

So Delock is either by definition admitting that their cable breaks the PD 3.1 spec and pulling an arbitrary wattage number out of their behind. Or they are lying and its only PD 3.0. And will not support any EPR operation.

The spec also says for any PD 3.1 or newer devices to ignore voltage levels of 30V 40V declared by a PD 3.0 cable. So either this cable is only a 100W cable and basically all valid and safe USB devices would only use it for up to 100W/20V. Or the cable will declare itself as actually 240W and the builtin electronics may or may not fry if you connect the cable to such devices.... RayWiki519 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)